Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BabyNes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Now OK. Unfortunately, using IAR to bring articles here is sometimes the only effective way to force improvements in something that will be unacceptable unless improved. I'd be glad if anyone could suggest a practical alternative that wouldn't be even more trouble. (Redirecting to an absurdly over-general article on a broad related topic that doesn't mention the subject & couldn't reasonably do so rarely gets attention. , DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BabyNes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This may be notable, but the article doesn't show it. I am reluctant to bring an article here that may only need expansion and updating, but after rewriting extensively a number of similarly weak article written or approved from AfC by this editor, I've lost patience. I'll withdraw the AfD if anyone is willing to work on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand it. At the time of it's creation, I was very busy and I had to go onto a business holiday. O will work on it, and I commit to that. Please don't deleteit. Coolboygcp (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The deletion argument basically boils down to "I don't want to fix it". Deletion is not an improvement tag. With respect to GNG, the article is trivially easy to CITE in major international newspapers, among other sources. Moreover I found the discussion of it's controversy interesting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gave it a few hours of love, a whole bunch of RS from major news sources—should be good now. czar · · 02:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this time, the article has many reliable sources indicating a notable product. Transcendence (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.